War! The fear mongering is here, again!

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

David, I never knew people like you actually existed until I came on A2K. I thought they were just acted as stooges for comedians.
It's one thing holding your bizarre political views, but they should be based on reality. The world you describe is a paranoid fantasy.

The fact that you're terrified of visiting your grandfather's birthplace without being armed, shows how far from reality you've allowed yourself to drift.

Its not as much fear, as decency.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Like I said, you're living in a fantasy world. I don't think it's at all decent to allow someone to die from a treatable illness because they're poor.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Like I said, you're living in a fantasy world.
I don't think it's at all decent to allow someone to die from a treatable illness because they're poor.

Stomping around unarmed is indecent and perverted.

David

0 Replies

The Intrigues of Persia

Humanitarian gestures and covert actions won't stop Iran's bomb.

As a supervisor at the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was engaged in building a nuclear bomb in violation of four binding U.N. Security Council resolutions. On Wednesday he was assassinated after a bomb was attached to his car, making him the fifth senior Iranian nuclear scientist known to have been killed in recent years.

His death will serve a useful purpose if it convinces a critical mass of his colleagues to cease pursuing an atomic critical mass. That wouldn't be a bad way to bring the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program to a peaceful conclusion. But don't count on it.

Opponents of Tehran's nuclear ambitions have been attempting for years to use a combination of diplomacy, sanctions and covert action to persuade the mullahs that they have more to lose than gain from building a bomb. So far, none of it has worked: Diplomacy has mostly allowed the Iranians to play for time. Sanctions so far have been too narrowly targeted to have much effect, though that may change now that the U.S. and Europe are finally targeting Iran's oil trade.

As for covert activity, we may someday learn the full story of who did what, how they did it, and what effect it all had. But to judge by last November's report on Iran's nuclear programs by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Tehran is closer than ever to a bomb. That's despite the Stuxnet computer worm, the assassinations, and last year's mysterious explosion at a missile factory.

What goes in the cloak-and-dagger world also goes for public diplomacy. Americans can take pride in last week's dramatic rescue by the destroyer USS Kidd of 13 Iranian sailors who had spent 40 days as hostages of Somali pirates. But if the Administration thought that would break the tension following Iran's threats over the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran had other ideas.

Days after the Kidd rescue, Iran imposed a death sentence on 28-year-old Amir Hekmati, an Arizona-born Iranian-American and former U.S. Marine. Mr. Hekmati was charged with spying for the CIA and convicted of being moharebe, or an enemy of God, the worst offense in the Iranian penal code. The U.S. government categorically denies that Mr. Hekmati worked as a spy. His family says he was in Iran on his first visit to see his grandmothers when he was arrested last August.

The Islamic Republic has a long history of detaining foreigners on dubious espionage charges and then trying to use them as diplomatic bargaining chips. But if Mr. Hekmati is simply their latest victim, the death sentence is unprecedented for an American citizen. It is also a reminder of how little U.S. gestures like Thursday's rescue count in Tehran's calculus. An evil regime will not be swayed by the conspicuous performance of good deeds.

Much of the world wants to believe that force won't be necessary to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the explosions and killings show that a covert war involving deadly force is already underway. The Obama Administration says Iran plotted to kill a Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C. restaurant, and Iran is trying to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan as it previously did in Iraq. Many more people will die if the world doesn't get serious about stopping this rogue regime.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577152802657445264.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

do u think that I listened to Bill and about WHAT ??
He is a Democrat. I am a libertarian conservative Republican.
We don 't agree on much, as a general rule

BillRM wrote:

We both are holders of CCW licenses and carry firearms
I do believe but other than that you are correct.

What are your defensive guns and ammunition of choice, Bill?
I prefer a ported .44 caliber Taurus Model 445
in stainless steel mirror (for ideal use at nite)

http://www.proguns.com/images/used-guns/usedguns247-904/278taurus445.jpg

loaded with hollowpointed slugs with W I D E cavities
to put on the brakes for optimal energy dump within the target.

David

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jesus Christ, talk about irrational. First, near the beginning of your post, you write:

Quote:
I’m not basing Iran’s supposed quest for nuclear weapons on the Palestinian issue.

Then, near the end of your post, you write:

Quote:
Your supposition that Iran is seeking nukes is squarely based on their animosity towards Israel’s Zionist regime (and the US’ lap dog defense thereof) and its illegitimacy which for the most part is due to the very fact of its oppression of and discrimination against the Palestinian peoples.

This is after Finn has categorically denied that that is his position. Do you think about what you are posting before you hit submit? It is complete bullshit that Iran's animosity toward Israel has anything to do with the Palestinian situation--you're making **** up. You're obsessed with riding a hobby horse which you cherish, and which has nothing to do with this thread.

Maybe I didn't word my post clearly enough. I'm stating that Iran's alleged quest for nuclear weapons is based on its animosity towards Israel and the US.

I don't see anywhere where Finn categorically denies this position.

I further went to specify that this animosity towards Israel is against its Zionist regime and its illegitimacy which is, for the most part, due to its treatment of the Palestinian peoples.

Maybe the statement that Iran holds Israel's Zionist regime to be illegitimate for the most part because of its treatment of the Palestinian peoples is debatable, but the fact remains that the Palestinian situation does have something to do with Iran's animosity towards Israel, Finn's and your disagreement thereof notwithstanding.

What is complete and utter bullshit is to claim that it is complete bullshit that Iran's animosity toward Israel has anything to do with the Palestinian situation seeing as how Iran's leadership continually refers to the Palestinian situation in regard to their animosity toward Israel with statements such as "Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, and that the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people," and "we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people," from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; and "the Jews, Christians and Muslims, if they come with the Palestinians, homeless Palestinians, to come and through following the democratic process will decide on a government and live in peace, Iran will support because we support peaceful settlement of the whole issue and peaceful coexistence of these divine religions in the Middle East. Let's hope for the peace,” from Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

How creditable these statements are are, of course, debatable. What isn't debatable is the fact that the Iranian leadership has based its animosity towards Israel on the Palestinian situation. Your opinions in regard to this fact are completely irrelevant.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I further went to specify that this animosity towards Israel is against its Zionist regime and its illegitimacy which is, for the most part, due to its treatment of the Palestinian peoples.

It is this to which i object--this is false. I have already stipulated that the Persians use the Palestinian situation as a propaganda tool, but they don't in fact give a ret's ass about Zionism. They stood by, completely disinterested in 1947-48 when many nations in the Arab world went to war with Israel. They're not Arabs, they don't speak Arabic, they're Shi'ites and not Sunnis, and they don't really give a damn about what happens to Sunnis. Their intervention in the Lebanon was specifically to support the Lebanese Shi'ites, among whom they formed the group Hezbollah. Sunnis can rot for all they care.

I suggest you do a web search for "SAVAK and Mossad." Then you might learn something. The mullahs and/or their families were the vicitms of SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, set up and trained by Mossad, or the victims of Mossad directly in the 1960s and -70s. That's their grudge against Israel. The rest is just window dressing.

That you start sneering about my opinions, when you are inserting your obsession with the Palestinians into the discussion are pathetic. Educate yourself about Iran's history from 1953 to 1979 and you might begin to understand. You might have a well-informed opinion to offer then, rather than just your personl mania.

1 Reply

From the CIA's World Fact Book:

For the West Bank, under the rubric "Religion:"

Muslim 75% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 17%, Christian and other 8%

For the Gaza Strip, under the rubric "Religion:"

Muslim (predominantly Sunni) 99.3%, Christian 0.7%

(I have added the emphasis.)

The Persian mullahs don't care if Sunnis live or die, nor how they die. They are a propaganda tool for Iran, nothing more. Iran does not provide the massive financial support to the Palstinians that they do, for example, for Hezbollah in the Lebanon. No surprise there, the largest single confessional group in the Lebanon is that of the Twelver Shi'ites.

0 Replies

From the Israel Project:

Quote:

Iran funds terrorist groups in the following manner:

Hamas: $30 million annually from 1993 – 2006, as well as several hundred million yearly between 2006 and 2009. Iran has also trained almost 1,000 Hamas terrorists in Iran, supporting their travel to Iran through Syria and providing instruction in rockets and bombs, tactical warfare, weapons operation and sniper tactics. Following a November 2006 visit to Iran by Hamas leaders, $250 million was pledged to help the Hamas regime deal with the Israeli embargo. Iran provides the vast majority of Hamas’ weaponry. Following the Israeli offensive against Hamas in Feb. 2009, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal visited Tehran praising it for aiding its "victory." In August 2009, Meshaal stated that post-election violence in Iran should not hinder Ahmadinejad’s support for Hamas.

Hezbollah: Over $200 million a year, plus a reported $300 million after the Hezbollah-Israel war in the summer of 2006. The U.S. State Department's 2009 annual terrorism report states that Iran has provided "hundreds of millions of dollars" in support to Hezbollah, and has trained thousands of Hezbollah fighters at camps in Iran. At least 4,500 Hezbollah operatives have received intensive training from Iran. In violation of United Nations Resolution 1701, Iran has re-supplied the Shia terror group with Katyusha rockets, surface-to-air rockets and anti-tank weapons; Hezbollah moreover provides training camps and financial assistance to Hamas. In an interview given to an Iranian news agency, Hezbollah's leader that his group would continue to be "obedient" to Iran. In June 2008, the US Treasury Department designated a number of Venezuelans as aiding Iran's financial network backing Hezbollah through this South American country.

There are far more Palestinians than there are Lebanese Shi'ites. Perhaps you can explain to me the discrepancies in the dollar amounts here. What they've give Hamas is pocket change for a petroleum producing nation.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

S&M model 19 357 revolver loaded with hollowpointes of course.

I do not trust even the model 1911 colt 45 semi authomatic not to jam at the worst possible time so I am a wheel man all the way.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

S&M model 19 .357 revolver loaded with hollowpointes of course.

I don 't know that firm.
Is that Hawkeye 's Armorer,
or did u mean an S & W model 19 ?

I chose a 2 inch barrel; it is compact. I like compactness.
I bet that my revolver is more compact than yours.

In my understanding, a .44 special will have more STOPPING POWER
than a .357 magnum. That is the reason that I selected a .44 special.

In NY, u have to carry concealed, unless u r wearing a uniform.

Will u reveal how u selected the model 19 ?

BillRM wrote:

I do not trust even the model 1911 colt 45 semi authomatic not to jam
at the worst possible time so I am a wheel man all the way.

AGREED! Automatics jam too much. I don't trust them.
Thay also have that unsanitary habit of spitting out used brass on the ground.
If u have used it defensively, u might not necessarily wanna hang around, policing your brass,
nor to leave id. around behind u. That coud be expensive.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Hamas has seen the writing on the wall, and they don't want to make the same mistakle Arafat made during the first gulf war. They're trying to align themselves more with their ideological counterparts in Egypt, The Moslem Brotherhood. I can't see Syria's regime continuing next year, which will limit Iran's influence even further.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I think that the Revolutionary Guard could still finance Hamas and Hezbollah without Syrian help--the problem would be the direct delivery of weapons to either group, for which Syria is the crucial conduit. All the hooplah about the Arab Spring has not worked out the way the pundits were predicting. No one had foreseen the debacle in Syria, and i know of no one who accurate predicted the course of events in Libya. The changes in Egypt have been cosmetic--Mubarak is not long the face of the corporate military government, but that government is still in charge. Effectively, nothing has changed there. Tunisia is the only place where this type of "miracle" rebellion has succeeded.

I agree that the fall of the Assad government would restrict the ability of the Revolutionary Guard to continue to support Hamas and Hezbollah as they have done in the past. I don't think, though, that it would end their support. I also agree that Hamas has both toned down the rhetoric, and taken a less militant stance. They can't get legitimacy as the voice of the Palestinians as long as they remain terrorists in the eyes of most of the world.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I agree with a lot of what you said, but Egypt is still a work in progress. The military regime has had to go back to the IMF after refusing a similar loan because they didn't like the preconditions. And the elections are the fairest they have been since the 1950s.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

The military in Egypt nevertheless still owns 90% of native Egyptian corporations, or a controlling interest in them. They are still arresting, trying and imprisoning critics of the regime. They still can, and i think will, block any parliamentary move against their total control of the country. Egypt may still go down the same road on which Syria now finds itself.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

That may well be true, but unlike Syria, the Egyptian military doesn't have many friends in Iran. They may find themselves unable to function without Western backing. Then again, the situation is highly volatile, and could go any way.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

InfraBlue wrote:
I further went to specify that this animosity towards Israel is against its Zionist regime and its illegitimacy which is, for the most part, due to its treatment of the Palestinian peoples.

It is this to which i object--this is false. I have already stipulated that the Persians use the Palestinian situation as a propaganda tool, but they don't in fact give a ret's ass about Zionism. They stood by, completely disinterested in 1947-48 when many nations in the Arab world went to war with Israel.

Who stood by disinterested was the puppet dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. He was deposed and his regime replaced by the current Islamic regime. Try reading further into the histories you post before hypocritically admonishing people to "learn something" and "educate themselves."

Yeah, they use the Palestinian situation as a pretext. One thing, however, is this fact, quite another is your logical leap asserting that because they use the Palestinian situation as a pretext they don’t “in fact” give a rat’s ass about Zionism.

Their entire rhetoric is based on an anti-Zionism stance.

In the CNN interview that I quoted above, Soltanieh responded to Wolf Blitzer’s question about their threats against Israel by saying, “I want to very briefly remind you that the policy of Islamic Republic of Iran and according to spirit and letter of our constitution is against any sort of school of thought or regime such as apartheid, Zionism, racism, and this is a matter of principle. Therefore, what you are talking about as apartheid was disappeared and it could not be accepted by civilized world, this Zionism and aggression of racism is also condemned.”

I’ve already quoted Khamenei’s declaration that Iran is on a collision course with the Zionist regime.

You off handedly wave off these statements from Iran’s very leadership and continue to assert that they don’t give a rat’s ass about Zionism, but then again, given these facts, your opinion isn’t worth a rat’s ass.

Quote:

They're not Arabs, they don't speak Arabic, they're Shi'ites and not Sunnis. . .

And this non-sequitur--along with the one where you compare Iran's funding of Hamas and Hezbollah--has absolutely no bearing on the fact of Iran’s animosity towards Israel’s Zionist regime as stated by Iran’s very leadership.

Quote:

. . .and they don't really give a damn about what happens to Sunnis.

Yet another opinion of yours that isn’t worth a rat’s ass.

Quote:

Their intervention in the Lebanon was specifically to support the Lebanese Shi'ites, among whom they formed the group Hezbollah.

Again, try reading further into the histories that you post. Hezbollah was formed precisely as a response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. In their 1985 manifesto they specifically refer to Israel as “the Zionist entity in the holy land of Palestine,” and in a 2002 interview with The New Yorker Secretary General of the Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah stated as one of their minimal demands of Israel the Right of Return for the Palestinians.

Quote:

Sunnis can rot for all they care.

Still another opinion of yours that, in light of the facts, isn’t worth a rat’s ass.

Quote:

I suggest you do a web search for "SAVAK and Mossad." Then you might learn something. The mullahs and/or their families were the vicitms of SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, set up and trained by Mossad, or the victims of Mossad directly in the 1960s and -70s. That's their grudge against Israel. The rest is just window dressing.

That you start sneering about my opinions, when you are inserting your obsession with the Palestinians into the discussion are pathetic. Educate yourself about Iran's history from 1953 to 1979 and you might begin to understand. You might have a well-informed opinion to offer then, rather than just your personl mania.

Yeah, the present Iranian regime has a grudge against Israel for their collusion with the Shah. However, one thing is this fact another thing is your opinion that all else is "window dressing" especially in light of the fact that they don't bring up that collusion as a justification for their assertions that the Zionist regime is an illegitimate one.

Here again, your opinions aren't worth a single, solitary mangy and pestilent rat's ass.

Your admonitions are utterly risible given the fact that you yourself don't read further into the histories that you post--which is your quaint wont--that usually have nothing to do with the threads at hand.

Talk about mania.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Who stood by disinterested was the puppet dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. He was deposed and his regime replaced by the current Islamic regime. Try reading further into the histories you post before hypocritically admonishing people to "learn something" and "educate themselves."

I see. So you know nothing about the 1953 coup engineered by MI6 and Central Intelligence which gave the Shah the power which he had previously lacked, theretofore being a puppet, and which he abused until the revolution. Also, you apparently know nothing about Mossad's involvement in setting up SAVAK, and acting as proxy agents for the Shah within Iran. It's because of such an apparent lack on historical knowledge on your part that i've already pointed these things out to you, but you've ignored them. It seems that you are so obsessed with your mania about the Palestinians that you don't want to learn these things.

As for the rest of your ravings, you have completely failed to address the rather obvious discrepancy between Persian funding for Hezbollah (a Shi'ite orgainization) and the funding for the Palestinians (an overwhelmingly Sunni population). It's hardly my fault if you are unable to draw reasonable conclusions from reliable data. I don't have a mania about this, i'm just better informed than you. My only point is that even were Israel to give the Palestinians a fair shake, the obsessional hatred of the generation of the mullahs for Israel wouldn't go away. The hatred of Israel in Iran will only die with the mullahs, and then it will take some time to fade away. The Palestinians have nothing to do with it, for all that you are obsessed with Zionism and the treatment of the Palestinians.

I see you're getting personally vicious now. Sad, but not surprising. There are a lot of people who can't handle having it pointed out to them that their opinions are informed by their biases or their obsessions rather than reliable facts.

1 Reply

By the way, that influential people in Iran say those things is a fact. That they are the truth about the Persian attitude toward Israel, is not established as fact just because those influential people peddle that propaganda. That propaganda is valuable to make them appear to be champions of a widely held point of view about Zionism--it would be much less effective were they to admit the personal grudge nature of their obsessive hatred of Israel. Reference to the founding Hezbollah because of one of several Israeli invasions don't mean much--i've already pointed out that they fund Hamas. They'll take any opportunity to make proxy attacks on Israel, but that's no evidence that they care about the Palestinians. The enormous and continueing funding of Hezbollah serves to support a specifically Twelver Shi'ite organization in the welter of Lebanese political factions, and to allow Hezbollah to buy respectability within the Lebanon through their social assistance programs, which they simply could not fund with the money from Iran.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Who stood by disinterested was the puppet dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. He was deposed and his regime replaced by the current Islamic regime. Try reading further into the histories you post before hypocritically admonishing people to "learn something" and "educate themselves."

I see. So you know nothing about the 1953 coup engineered by MI6 and Central Intelligence which gave the Shah the power which he had previously lacked, theretofore being a puppet, and which he abused until the revolution.

Apparently, you know nothing of the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran during the second world war which deposed Mohammad Reza's father, Reza Shah, whose regime was neutral during that war, and installed the former as a puppet who would do their bidding, allowing the Allies the use of their railway and of course control of their oil resources.

But like all of your posts in this little pissing contest of yours which serve merely as irrelevant filler in your pathetic attempt to justify your assertions, this has absolutely nothing to do with your asinine opinion that "it is complete bullshit that Iran's animosity toward Israel has anything to do with the Palestinian situation."

Quote:

Also, you apparently know nothing about Mossad's involvement in setting up SAVAK, and acting as proxy agents for the Shah within Iran. It's because of such an apparent lack on historical knowledge on your part that i've already pointed these things out to you, but you've ignored them. It seems that you are so obsessed with your mania about the Palestinians that you don't want to learn these things.

Yeah, I've known about it. Again, Mossad's collusion with SAVAK has absolutely nothing to do with your asinine opinion that "it is complete bullshit that Iran's animosity toward Israel has anything to do with the Palestinian situation."

Quote:

As for the rest of your ravings, you have completely failed to address the rather obvious discrepancy between Persian funding for Hezbollah (a Shi'ite orgainization) and the funding for the Palestinians (an overwhelmingly Sunni population).

The discrepancy between Iran's funding of Hezbollah and the Palestinians is irrelevant to the fact that Iran's animosity toward Israel is specifically against its Zionist regime and has something to do with the Palestinian situation. As I've already posted Hezbollah is against "the Zionist entity in Palestine." One of their minimal demands of Israel is the Right of Return for the Palestinians. Iran funds both the Palestinians and Hezbollah in their opposition to Israel's Zionist regime and the Palestinian situation.

The discrepancy between Iran's funding of Hezbollah and the Palestinians, more importantly, has absolutely nothing to do with your asinine opinion that "it is complete bullshit that Iran's animosity toward Israel has anything to do with the Palestinian situation."

Quote:

It's hardly my fault if you are unable to draw reasonable conclusions from reliable data. I don't have a mania about this, i'm just better informed than you.

What is your fault, however, is your apparent inability to further read the histories that you post in your pitiful attempt to backup these asinine opinions of yours; and also your hubris that leads you to make utterly stupid utterances such as you being better informed than me especially in light of your first fault.

It is merely your opinion that I am unable to draw reasonable conclusions from reliable data. I am going by the statements and actions of the Iranian leadership--some of which I've posted--to draw my conclusions.

You, on the other hand, take your data and come to non-sequitur, leap of logic conclusions leading you to state asinine opinions like "it is complete bullshit that Iran's animosity toward Israel has anything to do with the Palestinian situation."

I didn't say nor imply that your opinion that I am unable to draw reasonable conclusions from reliable data is your mania. I said your mania is your quaint wont to post your little histories that usually have nothing to do with the topic of the thread at hand.

Quote:

My only point is that even were Israel to give the Palestinians a fair shake, the obsessional hatred of the generation of the mullahs for Israel wouldn't go away. The hatred of Israel in Iran will only die with the mullahs, and then it will take some time to fade away. The Palestinians have nothing to do with it, for all that you are obsessed with Zionism and the treatment of the Palestinians.

I do not agree. Iran's beef is with Israel's Zionist regime. Iran's beef with the Zionist regime would largely disappear no matter what would replace it, quite frankly. I'm sure they'd be just giddy were a Shia theocracy to replace the ethnocentric Zionist regime. Given the situation in Palestine, however, and Iran's official statements and actions, if Israel were to dismantle its present regime and replace it with an egalitarian and pluralistic one that enfranchises the Palestinians, Iran's beef would disappear along with the Zionist regime.

Quote:

I see you're getting personally vicious now. Sad, but not surprising. There are a lot of people who can't handle having it pointed out to them that their opinions are informed by their biases or their obsessions rather than reliable facts.

You are incorrect. I am not getting personally vicious. I have not once spoken to your person. I have been referring and responding to your opinions, admonitions, assertions and conclusions, and as I've demonstrated have based my conclusions on the facts at hand.

1 Reply

War! The fear mongering is here, again!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know